Recent coverage on West Virginia's meth problem has painted a disingenuous and unhelpful picture of the situation.
Surely, meth poses a serious problem in pockets of the state, but for anyone to suggest that we can totally solve the problem by restricting individual freedoms and rights is ignoring reality.
Meth abuse, like most drug abuse, exists because there is demand for it.
Where there is demand, suppliers will always find a way to provide.
Take a look at our country's history in the war on drugs: we spend billions trying to eliminate the supply, yet drug abuse persists.
It is the same with meth in West Virginia.
Some lawmakers think that by making safe cold and allergy medicine like Sudafed a prescription-only drug, they will solve the meth problem.
We must remember that prescription drugs are just as easily abused as any illegal narcotic.
I use pseudoephedrine products because they work for me.
I do not want to have to go to a doctor to get a prescription, take time away from my already busy life, and then pay increased costs. And, I'm sure many West Virginians would agree.
If we are serious about preventing more meth abuse, then we need to be honest in our discussion on how to do so.
Let's look for innovative solutions for fixing demand and forget the old and tired supply-side policies that punish law-abiding citizens for dubious benefit.